Ads
related to: gillette p&g profits reviews
Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
P&G reported a net loss of about $5.24 billion, or $2.12 per share, for the quarter ended June 30, due to an $8 billion non-cash writedown of Gillette. For the same period last year, P&G's net ...
Procter & Gamble said on Tuesday a write-down of its Gillette business and lower price increases hampered its financial results.
Comet, a long-time P&G brand of cleanser is owned by Prestige Brands; Crisco (vegetable oil and shortening) sold to The J.M. Smucker Company then sold to B&G Foods; Crush/Hires/Sun Drop carbonated soft drinks (sold to Cadbury Schweppes in late 1980s) Dantrium sold to JHP Pharmaceuticals and SpePharm; Dash taken over by Dalli-Werke (dalli group ...
Gillette is an American brand of safety razors and other personal care products including shaving supplies, owned by the multi-national corporation Procter & Gamble (P&G). Based in Boston , Massachusetts , United States, it was owned by The Gillette Company , a supplier of products under various brands until that company merged into P&G in 2005.
P&G was one of the first mainstream advertisers on Spanish-language TV during the mid-1980s. [81] [82] By the late 1990s, P&G was established as the largest advertiser on Spanish-language media. [83] In 2008, P&G expanded into music sponsorship when it joined Island Def Jam to create Tag Records, named after a body spray that P&G acquired from ...
P&G initiated its fiscal year profit outlook in a range of $6.25 to $6.43. Wall Street analysts expected $6.38. Gross profit margins rose to 48.4% from 44.6% a year ago.
Gillette budgeted $300 million for a two-year advertising campaign for the Mach3 razor. [ 9 ] [ 11 ] Gillette marketed the three blade design as allowing for a shave with less pressure to the skin and with fewer strokes, thereby reducing skin irritation.
Companies can seek to cannibalise their own market shares through market cannibalism (or corporate cannibalism in this particular case), for two predominant reasons: gaining an overall greater market share within a same category of products at the expense of losing a single well established product's market share, or simply because they believe the second product will sell better than the first.